CA8.44 
1> CA\-e 


The person charging this material is re- 

sponsible for its return on or before the 

Latest Date stamped below, 
MEMORANDU Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 


are reasons for discipli 


nary action and may 
2 result in dismissal from the University, 
! University of Illinois Library 
: 
al 
ie Mis 
. - 

S : uf “t / if} 
Lo President 

150 N 


The following n 
essential elements in 
figures as are given 
imating average con 
naturally, costs will 
labor scales and pric 

survey of each prob 
figures. | 
Al 

| 

For purposes of 
city of 100,000 pop 
follows: _ 

Class 


Garba 
Ashes 
Rubbi 


: cate es y that: iti natugal oasaocainties che oe ee 
réetuse; tha , 
es far less than in other places ; that in cn sr 
th ashes will be greater than in cities locate in wa ni 
nN and so on. But we will use in the following no 
ZO 3 on. 
the bases stated above. 


L161— 0.1096 


L MA “y Aw C3. a jC 


oe 
ay ee 
, Rn ee ae) 


< To pool tlm 


' 


t 
Pa 


a 


; ~~ follows: 


MEMORANDUM ON REFUSE COLLECTION 
AND DISPOSAL 


By Robert Balmer 


SOD BP HALLER 


President, The Balmer Corporation 


150 Nassau Street., New York 


The following notes are intended to set forth certain 
essential elements in the problem of refuse disposal, and such 
figures as are given must be taken as only roughly approx- 
imating average conditions in American municipalities. Quite 
naturally, costs will vary in different localities due to varying 


labor scales and prices of materials and supplies. Only a local 
survey of each payee by itself will yield entirely reliable » 


figures. 


AMOUNT OF REFUSE es 


For purposes of discussion we will assume that in a given 
city of 100,000 Bae oigue te total amount of refuse is as 


Class | Tons per day 
Garbage 2h 
: Ashes 110 
Rubbish 13 
‘Eotat | 150 


It must be remembered that few cities keep records of 
their total refuse; that in natural gas localities the amount of 
ash will be far less than in other places; that in cold climates 
the ashes will be greater than in cities located in warmer 
zones; and so on. But we will use in the following notes 
the bases stated above. | 


LAMOLAY 


REFUSE COLLECTION 


Virtually all cities now employ the separate system of 
refuse collection. In some places the garbage is collected 
singly and the ashes and rubbish together. In others the gar- 
bage, ashes and rubbish become the subject of a tri-partite 
collection. ae 

No satisfactory method has yet been devised which allows 
satisfactory separation of city refuse in this manner. Ashes 
and rubbish as collected always contain a varying percentage 
of decaying garbage, and the garbage a varying percentage 
of ashes and rubbish. 

There is but one sanitary and otherwise satisfactory method 
of refuse collection, and that is a single collection wherein 
the rubbish, ashes and garbage are taken away at one call. 
This makes for convenience in. operation of the city’s refuse 
service, convenience to the householder and great economy 
in actual collection. 


Roughly speaking, the cost of one single collection as com- 
pared with a double collection represents a cost ratio of. 
about 1 to 1.5. Expressed in dollars and cents, for a city of 
100,000 population this means a cost of, say $165,000 per an- 
num for combined collection as against about $245,000, for 
separate collection. The difference in favor of combined col- 
lection capitalized at 5 per cent. represents a sum of. 
$1,600,000. 

When replacements are made in the wagon equipment; it 
is desirable to adopt specially designed vehicles to receive as 
one load every kind of the usual accumulation of garbage, 
ashés and rubbish. Still other type vehicles will be desirable 
for street sweepings, dead animals, and to accommodate bulky 
trade refuse. In the design and equipment of these refuse 
vans higher ethical standards should prevail. . Refuse col- 
lection and transport, the “dry sewer” of every city, should be 
cared for by vehicular service of atttactive fly proof carriers, 
as neat in appearance as hospital ambulances. 


REASONS FOR SEPARATE REFUSE COLLECTION 


There are, of course, a number of obvious reasons why city 
refuse is so commonly separated, collected and transported 
separately. These may be listed in part as follows: 

(a) Cases where garbage reduction is. practiced. 

(b) Cases where the existing incincerator plant, failing 

to handle efficiently the total mixed refuse, runs up a 


high. charge for auxiliary fuel to secure combustion 
of the refuse. 
2 


(c) Cases where the garbage is fed to hogs. 

(d) Cases where rubbish is used to fire incinerators for 

power .production purposes. 

(a) We shall not attempt in this memorandum to ex- 
patiate upon the insanitary, inefficient and costly refuse dis- 
posal expedient known as the reduction process. We shall 
discuss that method in a separate memorandum dealing com- 
paratively with all of the methods of refuse disposal in com- 
mon use today. Suffice it here to say that the reduction pro- 
cess, employed. for the extraction from garbage of grease 
and glue, and the subsequent drying of the remaining in- 
gredients for use as a fertilizer, is an intolerable nuisance. 
At best the plant must be located at a point miles distant 
from residential districts and public highways, often beyond 

. the bounds of the operating municipality, or become and re- 
main a source of complaints, embargoes, law suits, adminis- 
trative disorder and expense on the municipality misguided 
enough to adopt it. 

(b) We know of no case in North America where in- 
cinerators, whether burning garbage alone, or mixed refuse 
including garbage, operate throughout the year without the 
aid of auxiliary fuel. In some places, owing to the high fruit- 
residual content of the garbage, the cost of such fuel runs 
up into relatively staggering figures. 

(c) Hog feeding with garbage is an exceeding objection- 
able practice which has gained a footing because of the 
German-silver promise of obtaining something for nothing. 
This method can utilize but a small portion of the total refuse, 
and but a part of the garbage itself. It compels a separate 
collection service and leaves unsolved the disposal of the 
ashes, rubbish and miscellaneous garbage which constitute 
the vast bulk, or about 80 per cent., of the total refuse. 

Serious hygienic objections can be made to the feeding of 
garbage to hogs, because garbage-fed hogs are notoriously 
liable to trichinosis. The Massachusetts State Board of 
Health found that 13 per cent. of the hogs fed on public gar- 
bage had this disease which is communicable to man through 
the consumption of pork thus infected. 


Furthermoer, the garbage so fed to hogs must be selected 
with meticulous care that all particles of glass, tin, oyster 
shells, phonograph needles, etc., be first removed or they will 
cause the death of the hogs fed with garbage containing them.. 


(d) Those places where power is generated from rub- 
bish-fed furnaces are numerous, but here also but a small, 
and only the most inoffensive and easiest disposed of part 
of the refuse is cared for, leaving the garbage, and the gar- 
bage impregnated ashes, still to be dealt with. 

3 


INCINERATION OF THE TOTAL REFUSE 


The only sanitary and economical method of disposing of 
city refuse, comprising the garbage, ashes, street sweepings 
and rubbish, is by incineration of the mixed refuse. Only one 
collection is necessary. Even with imperfectly designed fur- 
naces satisfactory combustion of the most refractory refuse 
is always possible with the aid of auxiliary fuel. Under such 
conditions the service, while costly, is thorough. The dis- 
credit into which so many refuse incinerating plants have fal- 
len is due to the reluctance to use auxiliary fuel because of 
its cost. The health and comfort of many communities have 
been sacrificed to administrative parsimoniousness. 

Disposal of all the city refuse by incineration, regardless 
of pecuniary considerations, gives proper procedure to sani- 
tation. Cleanliness, whatever its cost, is profitable to any 
- city. Hygiene is of itself a valuable economic asset. 

Nevertheless, the efficient destruction of mixed refuse hy 
incineration also contributes to the general welfare with spe- 
cific values of its own creation, namely: 

(a) Because the refuse may be collected without separa- 
tion, or without separate containers and vehicles for ashes, 
garbage and rubbish. 

(b) Because the innocuous and inoffensive nature of a 
properly designed incinerator plant makes it feasible to locate 
the service centrally, thus consulting to a material degree the 
cunvenience and economy of the Street Cleaning Department. 

(c) Valuable by-products of a properly designed incin- 
erator are heat, with its resultant steam, (power and electric 
current) ash and clinker, with their resultants in the form of 


building materials, potash and {S net caloric value. 


INADEQUACY OF THE ORDINARY DESTRUCTOR. 


The city refuse, considered as a fuel, presents technical 
problems particularly its own, and as varied as the climate, 
ethnic, industrial and social conditions of the populations 
served. 

Generally speaking, the composition of city refuse may be 
described as heterogeneous with a large organic and moisture 
content, refractory and unreliable in composition, while extra- 
ordinarily bulky in relation to its net caloric value. 

Unfortunately the average destructor takes little ac- 
count of these special characteristics of city refuse. With 
the exception of an auxiliary combustion chamber and some 
special loading and unloading devices, the average destruc- 
tor follows closely the structural features of the coal furnace. 
The result is variable, capricious, and almost always disap- 

4 


pointing. Except where other light rubbish is abundant, or 
the proportion of coal cinders is large, the temperatures 
attained and maintained in the furnace are insufficient to 
insure the absolutely innocuity and inoffensiveness of the 
chimney gases. 

It is obvious that-the ordinary wood or coal furnace cannot 
deal satisfactorily with such a fuel as city refuse. In con- 
sequence of the failure of many destructor plants not only 
to achieve reliable and continuous combustion of the refuse 
fed into them, but also satisfactorily to guard against the 
escape from the chimney of smoke and offensive gases, con- 
siderable and justifiable prejudice exists in most communities 
against the location of a refuse destructor in their midst. 


THE PRIME DESIDERATUM IN REFUSE 
INCINERATION 


is the development to the maximum practicable degree of 
special thermo-dynamic conditions latent in the average city 
refuse. 

This feature is utterly neglected by most sanitarians, but 
which, if called into play, would alter the thermo-dynamic 
conception of refuse, and produce a complete transformation 
in destructor service. / | 

It has been discovered that after a simple prior treatment 
the most refractory refuse becomes highly inflammable and 
burns with intense heat. It has been found possible to adapt 
the storage of such bulky material to the small dimensions of 
the furnaces, and to insure its feeding into furnaces almost 
automatically with a minimum of direct manipulation by the 
attendants. Co-incidentally, by an entirely new cycle of fur- 
nace service, the serious problem of periodical re-starting of 
the fires in each furnace for which special easily inflammable 
material is required has been successfully solved, and stable 
and unifom, as well as permanently high temperatures under 
all conditions are thus assured. The service of clinker ex- 
traction, which in many cities involves the rehandling of ma- 
terial constituting approximately 50 per cent. of the weight 
of the original refuse, has also been re-organized, so that the 
dust and -heat connected with such operations is entirely 
avoided and the firemen’s floor kept free from such disagree- 
able operations. 

The sum and substance of these revolutionary develop- 
ments has been the exploitation on a large practical scale of 
an incinerator which can be centrally located, thus cutting 
down tremendously the long hauls of the refuse to the in- 
cinerator, and made possible by the fact that the incinerator 


5 
CS) 


operates without nuisance from odors, smoke or dust. No 
auxiliary fuel is required at any time in this type of in- 
cinerator. 

The cost of construction of the new type of incinerator 
is at least no greater than that of other types, all of which 
have proved in some measure unsatisfactory; and the cost of 
operation and maintenance of the new incinerator, especially 
when taking into account the material money, saving accru- 
ing from shorter hauls of the refuse to the incinerator, the 
compactness of arrangement of the various parts of the in- 
cinerator plants, the practically automatic method of its 
operation, and last, but by no means least, the value of by- 
products in the form of steam under constantly reliable pres- 
sures, clinker suitable for road building and other purposes, 
potash and other valuable chemicals, is far less than in the 
case of any destructor service now in operation anywhere 
in the world. | 


THE BALMER DESTRUCTOR 


The latest plant constructed under the Balmer system has 
been working for several years in the City of Montevideo, 
Uruguay. It is smokeless, odorless and dustless, and operates 
effectively in a more trying climate than that of New York. 
It is located within seven blocks of the City Hall and burns 
daily 250 tons of a refuse more difficult to treat than that of 
New York, and does its work without inconvenience or com- 
plaint in a populous neighborhood. 

This same system is also in use in the City of Buenos Aires 
where the previously noisome conditions of the old refuse 
service were eliminated and the sanitation of the city trans- 
formed. by the erection of a Balmer destructor of 1100 tons 
daily capacity, which makes it the largest single destructor 
plant in the world. 

The official reports of the Montevideo municipality demon- 
strate that a high standard of construction is maintained com- 
paring favorably with the best standard attained by any other 
public service, not excepting that of the public water supply. 
The service has not only performed efficiently, but it has also 
transformed completely the esthetic setting: of that service. 


THERMO-DYNAMIC STANDARDS 


Combustion engineering has derived its standards rather 
too carelessly from the results of coal combustion. It has 
therefore become the custom to classify combustibility in 
terms of the percentage of carbon in a given fuel. While this 


6 


Number 198. Price 15 cents. 

THE AMERICAN CITY PAMPHLETS 
Relative to City and Town ]mprovements 
Published by The Civic Press 
Tribune Bldg., New York 
Catalog sent on request 


The Municipal Refuse Destructor at 
Montevideo, Uruguay 


A Successful Experiment in New Principles and Design 


By Robert Balmer 


Sanitary Engineer, New York and Buenos Aires, Argentine 


N 1915, after an open competition in- 


which a number of the best-known Eu- 

ropean destructor firms had taken part, 
a Special Committee of I9, including the 
Mayor of Montevideo, Uruguay, all the 
Commissioners of Department, and a num- 
ber of prominent engineers and sanitarians, 
recommended the erection of a Balmer ref- 
use destructor. After the preliminary sur- 
veys and the preparation of the site, the 
work of construction was begun, and it 
was concluded within five months, on Au- 


aoe. og 


LOOKING TOWARD THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF MONTEVIDEO FROM THE DESTRUCTOR 


antee of 60 long tons per battery was soon 
exceeded by normal operation at 100 long 
tons, with reserve capacity to meet any 
emergency. The public needs are met by 
two batteries. They proved themselves ca- 


pable of dealing with the city’s whole out- 
put of refuse—garbage, ash, rubbish and 
street sweepings, together with a number 
of special services, such as cremation of 
dead animals, condemned food, commercial 
residuals, .etc. 

The destructor station occupies a part 


Note the proximity of high-quality residences. Portion of destructor building shown at right 


gust 25, 1915. One month more was taken 
up with drying out and warming up the 
batteries; then came an official test of two 
months’ durat’on, under the supervision of 
the author, which demonstrated a normal 
excess of 66.6 per cent over the contract 
stipulations. 


Description of Plant 
The plant consists of three batteries of 
three fire-grates each. The original guar- 


of the block between Ejido and Cuareim 
Streets, on a bluff overlooking a handsome 
boulevard or driveway that skirts the river- 
side—a conspicuous position, within seven 
blocks of the City Hall, and calculated to 
put to the severest test the possibility of 
nuisance from this system. 

Regular service under municipal manage- 
ment began January I, I916, immediately 
after termination of the official trials above 
mentioned. Early in 1917, the City Engi- 


THE FRONT OF THE BATTERY OF FURNACES AT THE MONTEVIDEO REFUSE DESTRUCTOR 


neer. H. Millot-Grané, issued the official re- 
port for the preceding year. Some brief 
extracts from that report will demonstrate 
the character and extent of the service ren- 
dered during the first year’s working. The 
report Says: 

“In table A will be found a resumé of the 
amount and quality of garbage and refuse re- 
ceived by the destructor during the year 1916, 
the first year of service. This table shows that 
the plant, although only a provisional struc- 
ture built only to test the efficiency of the 
system, received and destroyed without the 
slightest inconvenience all the garbage and 
refuse regularly produced by the city. 

“On the other hand, the elimination and 
destruction of the street sweepings and fish 
residuals bear testimony to the high crema- 
tory power of the batteries.” 


A GARBAGE AND REFUSE DESTROYED 1916 
Cartloads Character Total Weight 

0174263.) 9 ae Ollsech Olden. eee 64,443,610 Kilos 
(141,775,942 lbs.) 

10,415.,..| Street Sweepings 1,432,250 Kilos 
(3,150,950 Ibs.) 

Zul (On. ealy War ketsiser ya qe: 2,176,000 Kilos 
(4,787,200 Ibs.) 

093....| Military Barracks..... 296,000 Kitos 
(651,200 Ibs.) 

Saeco We isheResiddals ese 186,500 Kilos 
(410,300 lbs.) 

L742 Hospitals 0). ae eee 174,000 Kilos 
(382,800 Ibs.) 

18....| Private Individuals... .. 9,000 Kilos 
(19,800 lbs.) 

56....| Residuals from the Port. 114,000 Kilos 

: (250,800 Ibs.) 

LS Zen svc] aVALIOUS 5 See ee ee eee 152,000 Kilos 
(334,400 lbs.) 

71,383 Cartloads with........ 68,983,360 Kilos. 


151,763,392 Ibs.) . 


“Table B, complementary of the preceding, 
details some unexpected services rendered by 
the plant. In this direction, during the present. 
year, an effort will be made to extend these 
services, making them available to many public 
and private institutions and, in general, to all 
those establishments which are interested in 
quickly getting rid of such refuse as they pro- 
duce in large quantities.” 


TABLE B SPEC.AL SERVICES 
Source Objects Incinerated 

City) Dog=-Pound en. eee 2,980 Dogs 
Animal Sanitary Police.......... 5 Sheep 
i “ Span ere 12 Cows 
oy Ds Perse 1 Horse 

IMedicalshacultyem en eine 13 Animals 

; Various 


9 Cases of Food- 


stuffs - 
$5,664,555 in notes, 
etc: 
6,270 kilos (or 13,794 
lbs.) of Duplicates, 
fa den 


Municipal Chemical Laboratory. 


“In order to complete these brief notes on 
the incinerating capacity of the Montevideo 
destructor, as exhibited during its first year 
of working, and to give an idea of its intrinsic 
value, Table D is attached, in which may be 
seen its capacity exhibited in comparison with 
the incinerating stations of the greatest sci- 
entific importance as yet known, without ex- 
ccpting that of Hamburg, which must be taken 
as the most considerable effort of modern sani- 
tary technique in the matter of garbage and 
refuse disposal. 

“The above Poncicerationt: may be concluded 
by stating that, according to the technical 
report officially issued under date of September 
19, 1916, by the Institute of Industrial Chemis- 


TABLE D INCINERATION PER UNIT 1916 
Number | Cells Daily Output Cost of 
City of System of Per Per Unit Construction 

Units Unit Per Unit 

NNER SUC ETI ee Ronee ae ut oeAnvecchan dae rs gan ws at he IDOrae sie 6 1 19,500 Kilos $13,606 
; (42,900 Ibs.) 

erat Ot wees See eee rte te ee NL he 15 las Ahn ne mek 6 4 _ 30,000 Kilos 52,900 
(66,000 Ibs.) 

Stir CMe eee yee eee Seer es foe sce te the ign b Olate, 1. tec 2 1 27,500 Kilos 17,250 
(60,000 Ibs.) 

Mae lived Re CMe pate arc cco ee ci si a¥eidoere io Saitek dae ad, Heenan. 3 4 80,000 Kilos 69,000 
(176,000 Ibs.) 

PAQMEU ALOT et on sk cette crt wih alee he ote Udhet..s. 12 1 44,000 Kilos 21,850 
(96,800 Ibs.) 

WEOMCE VIC CO debe ete ea eee Se alten icy, hide 3 3 90,000 Kilos 21,666 
(198,099 Ibs.) 


try, the clinker and ash of the Montevideo 
destructor show a perfect incineration of the 
garbage and refuse, or, which is the same, 
an absolute elimination of all organic matter. 

“And Table F exhibits the economy with 
which the plant is operated. In making up 
this last table, we have taken as basis the 
actual working budget of the plant, which 
reaches $28,800 annually, and the cost of amor- 
tization and interest on a capital of $65,000, 
covering the cost of the plant. 

“It is desirable to state here that this low 
cost of construction and operation is due to the 


mechanical simplicity of the Balmer system. 
The complicated apparatus and devices which 
form part of all known systems of destructors 
do not exist in our establishment. Situated 
at a low level, the natural action of gravity 
carries the garbage and refuse down to the 
fire-grates. 

“Another characteristic worthy of mention, 
as representing the economic nature of our 
installation, is its central location with respect 
to the service of collection. The distance of 
seven kilometers, from the centre of the city 
(City Hall) to the disgraceful garbage dump 


TABLE F COST OF OPERATION PER 1,000 KILOS INCINERATED ANNUALLY (1916) 
Annual Cost of Quantity Operating Cost 
' System Operation, with Incinerated Per 1,000 Kilos 
10% Int. & Mort. Annually (or long ton) 
Zurich orstalleer Ss, hei ae cosas $30,820 20,000 Long Tons $1.54 
Whi watkGes fs. chi ats a gacls TA CEMATN TAM one laa del cei Oe 81,650 54,000 “ sae iL oath 
BS rariletorteote. casts nc aceh ies enbert Zire: . ora cater eaneiees 67,160 46,500 ‘“ a; 1.45 
Wiesbadeninn csc... eahue ns Bos aie, iron toc eee eae reo 19,205 17,000 “ Ss 1-13 
TILE a or pie rice oe EL TH DOL Gerth he sto co eee 11,040 12,0005 <5 i 0.92 
PAPI UM Oe teres yy cae lop eeuns Widhiowewemnrectatiockcs oe 71,300 100,000 “ ie 0.71 
INMLONTEMIGEOs). oe fs ee ealmMetae esc sates 35,000 66,000 “‘ Mi 0.53 


ais 


WORKMEN’S REST ROOM AT THE MUNICIPAL 


REFUSE DESTRUCTOR 


of the Buceo, was reduced, in virtue of the 
new station, to 800 metres. And, in the first 
year of working, it has been proved that, owing 
to this more favorable location, it would be 
possible to reduce to one-half the expense of 
collection and cartage, and thus effect a 
monthly saving sufficient to cover the total 
present cost of working of the station, viz., 
$2,400 monthly, and to cover likewise the 
interest and amortization on the capital em- 
ployed in construction.” 


Up to the end of 1920, the destructor sta- 
tiom has operated without developing its 
own power. It has now been decided by 
the municipality to install boilers and an 
electric generating plant to utilize the heat 
produced by the furnaces. By the third 
quarter of the current year, the new power 
service should be in full operation. It is 
estimated that each battery will develop a 
minimum of 400-kilowatt capacity. 


Principles of Operation 

A brief reference may now be permitted 
to the underlying principles of the Balmer 
destructor. These had already been put into 
practice in the 100-ton destructor of Flores, 
Buenos Aires; in the 1,000-ton destructor 
of the Quema, Buenos Aires, and a dozen 
smaller destructors in that and other Argen- 
tine cities. In the Montevideo plant, the 
same principles have the advantage of the 
foregoing practical experience, aided by 
more careful designing and a more esthetic 
setting, expressive of the new social status 
of the service. 

Fundamentally, and especially in dealing 


with semi-tropical refuse, where ash is 


practically non-existent and where garbage 
constitutes an excessively high percentage, 
the Balmer destructor depends for its sani- 
tary. efficiency of the development and _util- 
ization of hitherto unappreciated and neg- 


lected elements in the refuse itself. By fer- 
mentation of organic constituents, displace- 
ment and expulsion of accompanying mois- 
ture, volatilization of hydrocarbons, and 
even oxidation of metals,—all aided by the 
application of waste heat from the combus- 
tion chamber,—a molecular readjustment is 
effected, which transforms the character of 
organic refuse as a combustible; its ignition 
becomes easy, and it develops high tempera- 
tures. It is true that, under this treammems. 
in the pioneer installations, some unusual 
phenomena presented themselves: spontane- 
ous combustion of the refuse in storage, 
and the production of explosive gaseous 
mixtures, with violent dilatation in the air- 
flues and in the furndce “itselij = 3 iiese 
phenomena, while exceedingly inconvenient 
under the conditions of the first installa- 
tions, were very convincing signs of the ex- 
istence of considerable caloric potentials in 
ordinary city refuse, which only required 
adequate measures for their utilization to 
insure a perfect sanitary service and an 
abundant source of power. 


The Collection System Used 


It may be noted here that, in bot 
cities above mentioned, the improv ® 
the service of final disposal of refuse re- 
acted automatically in the creation of a 
higher standard for the vehicles of collec- 
tion and transport of the refuse. A cov- 
ered type of van was at once developed, 
which effectually kept the refuse out of 
sight and provided shelter for the driver 
in all weathers. The service became less 
an ocular and olfactory offense, and soon 
gained the toleration and then the respect 
of the average citizen. 


sic ok 


may be a reliable guide in determining the relative heat 
values in coal and substantially similar fuels it is quite 
misleading if applied to radically different fuels. 


When we come to more complex fuels, like garbage for 
example, the unreliability and inapplicability of the carbon 
percentage standard as the measure of thermo-dynamic rating 
becomes more completely obvious. In that heterogeneous 
composite there arise several phenomena of combustion, with 
production of heat, which do not depend upon carbon at all. 
It will be enough to mention for the moment, metals. These 
in a fine state of sub-division are readily burned with the 
production of intense heat. 


The obsession under which sanitarians are laboring that 
the phenomena of combustion of pure carbon must determine 
those of every other class of fuel has led them very much 
astray. The coal districts of England were the birth place 
of the modern refuse destructor. That fact is the sufficient, 
although not entirely creditable, explanation of a whole flood 
of erroneous theory and practice. The refuse furnaces were 
designed as if for coal and the refuse was handled like coal. 
Naturally enough, whenever coal was not the dominating 
feature of the refuse, there was trouble. The only safe place 
for the refuse destructor seemed to be behind a heavy rein- 
forcement of coal. Rash adventures outside the safety zone 
invariably came to grief. 


It is necessary at this point to consider the composition of 
refuse as a fuel, particularly such refuse as is devoid of 
coal ashes. 


The water in the refuse, which may be taken as from 55 
to 65 per cent. is best removed by expressing in the storage 
bins, and the task of the furnace is in such measure relieved. 
The metals are oxidized under conditions of a moist warm 
atmosphere such as is provided in the storage bins. The 
moisture is in effect disintegrated, the oxygen being fixed 
with the metal, the hydrogen brought into contact with the 
incandescent fuel on the fire grate, and a bunsen burner or an 
oxihydrogen effect is produced at the point where most 
needed, namely, playing upon the heavier, more refractory 
refuse on the fire grate, the lower layers of which are about 
to solidify into clinker. 


The volatilization of hydro-carbons as a result of the heat 
above mentioned is another phenomenon occurring in the 
refuse storage chamber. The hydro-carbons mixed with air 
make their way with other gases to the ashpit and there, in 
contact with the incandescent fuel on the fire grate, combine 


7 


PSE TELE EROSST ESES S 


with the oxygen of the air in intense concentrated heat. This 
also occurs at the point where the most refractory refuse 
in the furnace is found. It must be obvious that the displace- 
ment of this important proportion of hydro-carbons in the 
form of vapor and their ignition and combustion in the heart 
of the batch of fuel on the fire grate must contribute directly 
to accelerate and intensify furnace operations. The mere 
physical change of relation between the hydro-carbons and 
the moisture of the refuse has increased the thermic momen- 
tum of the former, thus enabling it to overcome the inertia 
of the latter. Interlaced with the hydro-carbons the moisture 
would have hampered ignition and retarded combustion. 
Attacked in the rear, as it were, by the volatilized hydro- 
carbons, the moisture is taken at a disadvantage and itself 
volatilized and driven out of the refuse approaching the lower 
zone of combustion. 


One of the most important features in this process is the 
promotion of fermentation as a stimulant of combustion. 
Microscopic organisms feeding on and digesting the carbon- 
ates in the organic refuse produce a new complex of extra- 
ordinarily diversified composition and qualities. This mole- 
cular readjustment results in ready ignition and intense heat 
where before was slow ignition, sluggish combustion and 
low temperature. 


In stimulating fermentation activities in the mass of 
organic refuse to favor its ultimate combustion ready means 
have been found in the utilization of the waste heat of the de- 
structor furnace. Whereas in the ordinary type of destructors 
every effort was made to keep the refuse cool when in stor- 
age, in this process the endeavor is to make and keep it warm. 
An immediate improvement in combustion is the result, and 
it is noticeable that as the period of storage increases the 
refuse becomes more and more inflammable until the work- 
men actually complain of the high temperatures and the 
violence of ignition of the refuse as it falls into the fire. 
Before the system was perfected it was found necessary to 
install in the storage compartments sprinkler systems to 
check the tendency to auto-combustion. 


With further consideration of the action of fermentation 
as a stimulant to combustion it is well to remember that it 
operates both in the mass of refuse as well as outside of it as 
a distilled vapor. Jn the latter capacity it acts in a manner 
similar to the volatilized hydro-carbons. The variety of alco- 
hols and other highly combustible compounds forming in the 
fermented refuse have varying densities and behave differ- 
ently under the same temperatures. Some vaporize at 66 


8 


degrees, others at the boiling point of water, and higher. 
Those still retained in the mass of refuse, in spite of the 
warmth of the storage chamber, ignite instantly when a load 
of refuse 1s charged into the furnace, bursting into violent 
flames. 

In the practical working of a refuse destructor the best 
results follow the holding back from one day to another suf- 
ficient refuse to keep the furnace at work for three or four 
hours. This fermented refuse from the day before serves as | 
the seed for the fresh incoming refuse. It might be thought 
that the chill days of winter will interfere with the course 
of fermentation in the destructor. If the chill should reach a 
freeze, the effect would be only to break down the cellular 
tissues in the fruit, etc., and to still further facilitate decom- 
position and fermentation. 


As is perfectly susceptible of authentic substantiation the 
Balmer process of refuse incineration is thorough, odorless, 
smokeless and dustless. It needs no auxiliary fuel in its opera- 
ation. It produces steam under constant pressures for power 
development, as well as other residuals of high marketable 
value. Its freedom from nuisance features allows its instal- 
lation at favorable points within a municipality thus cutting 
to a minimum the cost of transportation of the refuse. It is 
at least no more costly to install than any other type of in- 
cinerator, and possesses the prime advantage over other de- 
structors in that it will give complete satisfaction; and its 
cost of operation and maintenance is far lower than that of 
any incinerator system in operation on this continent. 


COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF REFUSE 
INCINERATORS 


The cost of construction of refuse incinerator plants in 
North America varies at different places, but more particu- 
larly because of local decisions respecting character of con- 
struction, local labor and material costs. 

For completely equipped plants of the Balmer type the 
costs of construction naturally will vary also because of these 
very conditions. By and large, however, a plant of 100 tons 
daily capacity will cost to build perhaps $1,500 per ton or 
$150,000, whereas a 1,000 ton daily plant will cost about $1,000 
per ton, or $1,000,000. These figures include all construction 
charges except land. Variations.on both sides of these ten- 
tative figures will obtain, of course, because of local decisions 
relative to simplicity or elaborateness of construction, as well 


9 


as the local cost of labor, building materials and supplies. Defi- 
nite figures of cost can only be arrived at after a painstaking 
preliminary study of a given situation has been made. 

For the sake of comparison there is here set forth a table 
showing the actual costs of construction of certain destruc- 
tor plants in North America. To make the comparison more 
nearly applicable we have revised these costs on a present. 
day reproduction basis. 

It will be observed that these costs vary widely, from $371 
per ton capacity for the 100-ton plant at Racine to $2,430 per 
ton for the 90-ton plant at Clifton, New York. No special com- 
ment is perhaps necessary regarding the Racine plant except 
to record the fact that 225 pounds of.coal were burnt per.ton 
of garbage (Eng. & Cont., Sept. 15, 1915, p. 211). The Clifton 
plant, representing the other extreme, is of the “Heenan” 
type. The total cost of incineration at that plant, during a 
test made in 1913, was $0.41 per ton. Today this figure would 
become about double that on account of the increased cost 
of labor. Adding interest and depreciation at 10 per cent. on 
$218,700 would give $0.67 per ton, or a total cast of approx- 
imately $1.50 per ton with plant operating under the most 
expert supervision. 

For whatever they are worth the weighted average 
present day cost of construction of these 22 representative 
North American destructors may be safely taken at about 
$1,500 per ton daily capacity. 


10 


COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF REFUSE 


INCINERATORS 

Capacity Cost per Ton Capacity 

in Estimated Cost 

Year Tons When of Replace- 

City Built Daily Built ment Today 
Atlanta, Ga. 1914 Zoe $1,100 $1,810 
Berkeley, Cal. 1913 50 1,400 2,310 
Circon, N.Y. 1913 90 1,472 2,430 
*Haston, Pa: 1910 30 680 1,120 
Halifax, N. S. 1912 en.!) 900 1,480 
Havana, Cuba 1914 500 574 948 
Milwaukee, Wis. 1910 300 707 1,170 
Montgomery, Ala. 1912 60 86749121 15430 
*Minneapolis, Minn. 1901 65 1,000 1,650 
*Pasadena, Cal. 1913 30 1,708 2,810 
Paterson, N. J. 1914 60 Pao 2,200 
*Racine, Wis. 1913 100 eo SAL 
San Francisco, Cal. 1914 120 985 1,630 
Savannah, Ga. 1914 130 959 1,580 
Poctanton, Pd. : 1908 20 825 1,360 
Seattle, Wash. 1908 60 602 995 
*Spokane, Wash. 1908 30 1,330 2,190 
“Terre Haute, Ind: 1907 40 625 1,030 
Toronto, Ont. 1912 180 1,183 1,960 
Vancouver, B. C. 1909 50 824 1,360 
Westmont, P. O. 1906 50 829 1,370 
W. New Brighton, N. Y. 1908 60 1,406 2,320 
Weighted Average Cost $ 884 $1,459 


*Garbage furnaces. 


Note:- Acknowledgement is made to Messrs. Hering & 
Greeley. Figures in last column hereof computed by the 
author. Rue 


ob 


COST OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 
-REFUSE INCINERATING PLANTS 


In their book “Collection and Disposal of Municipal 
Refuse” Messrs. Hering & Greeley (p. 553) estimate the aver- . 
age range of costs of refuse disposal in the United States in 
1910 as follows: 


Cost of Annual Costs of Operation. 
Construction Ore Ts 

per Ton Cost per Ton | Handled, “Excluding Collection 

Rated Daily Fixed Total Net 
Capacity Charges Operation Gross Cost Revenue Cost 
$800 $0.24 $0.60 $0.84 $0.50 $0.34 

to to to to to to 

$1,600 $0.35 $1.00 S18 $0.20 S115 


These statements appear very well founded and in ac- 
cordance with the facts as of a dozen years ago. Today, how- 
ever, they would easily be double or more the figures given. 
At twice the figures given for gross cost of treatment the 
present day cost would range from $1.68 to $2:70 per ton; and 
in this connection it is interesting to note that 1918 the total 
cost of incineration at the West New Brighton (N. Y.) plant 
was $2.66 per ton, and in 1919 at the Milwaukee plant the 
cost of operation alone was $2.44 per ton, exclusive of fixed 
charges (p. 535, Hering & Greeley’s book). Thus from 1913 
to 1919 the cost of operation of the Milwaukee incinerator 
increased from $1.23 to $2.44, or 98 per cent. 

Compared to these fisures the following tabulation will 
show details of the present day cost of operation and main- 
tenance of a 1,000-ton refuse incinerator of the Balmer type. 
The question of revenue from incinerators of the Balmer and 
other types will be discussed later on. 


12 


TENTATIVE FIGURES OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, 
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A REFUSE 
INCINERATOR OF THE BALMER TYPE 


. Quantity of Mixed Refuse: 1,000 tons daily. 


2. Plants: Two, each of 600 tons daily capacity. Ten 100-ton 
batteries at work and two in reserve. 


— 


3. Personnel: Per Month Per Annum 
2 Managers $400 $ 9,600 
2 Asst. Managers 250 6,000 
2 Clerks 150 3,600 
18 Firemen (3 each shift) 180 38,880 
18 Clinkermen and stokers  _ 150 32,400 
42 Feeders (overhead) 120 60,480 
6 Cleaners up (tin and bottle men) 100 7,200 
6 Men in charge of stored clinker 100 7,200 
6 Machine tenders 120. 8,640 
4 Van discharge men 120 5,760 
8 Exchange men in reserve 100 9,600 
2 Night watchmen 100 2,400 
$191,760 
4. Power, Light, Oil and Waste, per annum 36,500 
5. Interest and Depreciation on First Cost of 
$1,200,000 @ 10 per cent. 120,000 
6. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance $348,260 


SUMMARY OF ABOVE FIGURES 


Item per Ton 
Cost 
Personnel $0.53 
Power, etc. 0.10 
wlnterest, etc. | 0.33 
POTALA wai S0.96 


REVENUE FROM REFUSE DESTRUCTOR PLANTS 


The published records so far as showing revenues derived 
from American incinerator plants are very fragmentary and 
of questionable value. Hering & Greeley in their book state 
that such revenues range from $.20 to $0.50 per ton of mixed 
refuse burned. Presumably no revenue is derived from gar- 
bage furnaces, per se. At the Westmont, Quebec, incinerator 
the value of steam production for generating electric current 
is given as $0.29 per ton for the year 1919; at the Milwaukee, 
Wis., plant $0.27 per ton of refuse burned in 1916; at West 
New Brighton, N. Y., $0.33 from clinker sales; and at the 
Savannah, Ga., incinerator plant $0.16 per ton of refuse 
burned in 1916 is figured as the value of steam production for 
pumping water. 

In the Balmer system, however, reliable figures on revenue 
are available. We have hesitated about forcing this subject 
to the fore because it is by no means the argument which 
establishes the superiority of the Balmer process of refuse 
incineration over all other systems. That argument is based 
upon, and proved by actual experience—sanitary, effective and 
economical service with a complete absence of nuisance 
features. It is a process wherein common sense and the prac- 
tical application of phenomena hitherto undemonstrated in 
the field of refuse disposal has proved its superiority beyond 
peradventure. It is no rhetorical extravagance to assert that 
while other processes are based upon unsound combustion 
theories the Balmer system is founded not upon theoretical 
reasonings but upon facts and practicalities developed in years 
of actual experience on a large scale. 


SOURCES OF POTENTIAL REVENUE FROM REFUSE 
INCINERATORS 


Obviously the chief sources of revenue from properly de- 
signed and operated refuse incinerators are high pressure 
steam, clinker and fertilizer materials. Added to these direct 
revenues from the operation of the incinerator is the immense 
money saving accomplished by a single collection of the 
combined refuse compared with separate collection requiring 
two or more calls at each house. Furthermore, the absence 
of nuisance features in and about a Balmer destructor make 
possible its location within a municipality at convenient points, 
thus obviating long hauls and the accompanying expense 
thereof. 


14 


(a) Power Development. This is perhaps the most im- 
portant by-product of the Balmer incinerator. Electric gen- 
erating stations are combined in each destructor station for 
the purpose of utilizing the waste heat developed. This 
means, of course, that this electric energy can be efficiently 
distributed to the public only through the existing electrical 
distribution systems of the central stations, and further, can 
only be made profitable to all parties concerned by real co- 
operation between Public Service Companies and the city or 
company operating the refuse destructor stations. 


The normal seasonable load curve of the refuse destruc- 
tor follows closely the normal seasonable electrical load curve 
of the Central Station. Furthermore, it is not necessary for 
the purposes of destructor economy to operate the incinera- 
tors at uniform load throughout the 24 hours, so it follows 
that the load curve of the central station, if operated in con- 
junction with the destructor generating stations, should be 
materially improved. 


Speaking generally, it appears that at a Balmer refuse de- 
structor plant of 1,000 tons daily capacity 47,320,000 kilowatt 
hours can be produced. A subtraction from this of 3,900,000 
kilowatt hours for internal service leaves 43,420,000 kilowatt 
hours for sale at a net profit of % cent per unit, or $217,100 
annually. 


(b) Clinker. We may figure the residual clinker at 35 
per cent. of the original refuse, or in a 1,000-ton plant 350 
tons daily. This annual production of 127,750 tons of clinker, 
saleable for construction uses at, say, $0.30 per ton, would 
return an annual revenue of $38,000. 


(c) Fertilizer Materials and Other Sources of Revenue. 
The value of this class of by-products is not so susceptible of 
accurate figuring. The fertilizer value of the ash produced by 
the furnaces is considerable. There are numerous other minor 
sources of revenue which perhaps need not be referred to here. 


Summing up, however, the combined revenue from steam 
and clinker derivable from a Balmer destructor plant of 1,000- 
tons daily capacity amounts to a total of over $255,000 an- 
nually, or $0.70 per ton of refuse burned. Deducting this 
from the total cost of refuse destruction set forth at the 
‘bottom of page 13 of this memorandum leaves $0.26 per ton 
as the present day net total cost per ten. It is instructive to 
compare this figure with those taken from Hering & Greeley’s 
book and reproduced herein on page 12. 


15 


A FEW TESTIMONIALS 


The latest and most modern installation of the Balmer 
refuse destructor system is in Montevideo, Uruguay. The 
official report on this plant, signed by FL. Millot- Grane, City 
Engineer, says in part: 


“The facts above mentioned are sufficient to show 
most conclusively that the incinerating capacity of our 
destructor exceeds all provisions, so much so that it 
satisfies amply the fullest requirements of the city.” 


“Acording to the technical report issued by the In- 
stitue of Industrial Chemistry the clinker and ash of 
the Montevideo destructor show a perfect incineration 
of the garbage and refuse, or, which amounts to the 
same thing, an absolute elimination of all organic 
matter.” 


Mr. Millot-Grane goes into questions of cost showing that 
the complete installation was made at a cost of $241 per ton 
daily capacity; and that the total cost of operation and main- 
tenance, including amortization and interest on capital in- 
vested, was $0.53 cents per ton of refuse incinerated (1916-17). 
He says that: 


“Tt is desirable to state here that this low cost of 
construction and operation is due to the mechanical 
simplicity of the Balmer system. The complicated ap- 
paratus and devices which form part of all known 
systems of destructors do not exist in our establish- 
ment.” 


“Another characteristic worthy of mention, as rep- 
resenting the economic nature of our installation, is its 
central location with respect to the collection service. 


The distance of 4 1-3 miles from the center of the city 
(City Hall) to the disgraceful garbage dump of Buceo, 
was reduced, by virtue of the new station, to one-half 
mile. In the first year of operation of the Balmer de- 
structor it has been proved that, owing to this more 
favorable location, it 1s possible to reduce by one-half 
the cost of collection and cartage and thus effect a 
saving sufficient to cover the total present cost of 
operating the destructor station, including the interest 
and amortization on the capital invested in its con- 
struction.” 


On an inquiry of Royal S. Copeland, M.D., Health Com- 
16 


missioner of New York, Jfr. H. L. Janes c_—e-,. wrote 
as follows regarding the Montevideo destructor : 


“During my last visit to South America I spent some 
time in Uruguay and had occasion to inspect the mu- 
nicipal refuse disposal plant and to examine into its 
operation. I met the City Engineer, Mr. Millot- Grane 
and made several visits to the plant in company with 
my associate in The Foundation Company and the 
President of the Uruguayan Society of Engineers.” 


“Montevideo is a city of about 400,000 inhabitants. 
The collection carries to the plant the entire refuse of 
the city, ashes, garbage, street sweepings, offal, dead 
animals, market collections, rubbish, etc. There is no 
separate collection and disposition of ashes, garbage 
fandiwiboish suchas exists in New York: City.” 


“The entire collection is brought to the Balmer 
plant and there destroyed. No coal or other auxiliary 
fuel is used at the plant. Perfect incineration of the 
entire collection of the city is secured with the system 
without such aid.” 


“The City Engineer assured me that the City was 
absolutely satisfied with the Balmer plant, and was 
completing plans for additional units of the same sys- 
tem with electric generating installation to utilize the 
waste heat. Operation was economical, running ac- 
cording to my recollection to about $0.54 per ton of 
refuse incinerated (this does not include cost of col- 
lection but does include 10 per cent. for depreciation 
of plant and a charge for amortization of the capital 
invested therein).” 3 


“The plant is placed near the center of the city ina 
residential section. There are no obnoxious odors from 
the plant and no complaints of any nature, so far as I 
could ascertain from the surrounding neighborhood.” 


The American Consul at Montevideo, in a report to the 
Latin American Division, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic 
Commerce, Washington, D. C., dated October 25, 1920, says 
about this plant: 


“The incinerating plant is located on the beach 
some ten blocks from the heart of the city.’ * * * 
The superintendent of the plant informs me that during 
the five years of its use the plant has not been taxed to 
its full capacity, although through long periods of wet 
weather unusual vigilance has to be exercised to see 
that the fires burn properly.” 


17 


“The superintendent stated that five years of prac- 
tical use of these incinerators should be sufficient tes- 
timony as to their service, and plans are already under 
way to erect another set of furnaces. Boilers will be 
installed in both the old and new furnaces, and the 
steam utilized in generating electricity for the power 
plant. 

“The plant is located in a residential section of the 
city. There were no odors, smoke nor dust noted on 
a visit through the plant, and no complaints have been 
heard from the public against the location of the plant 
or smoke from its three tall stacks.” 


18 


ADDITIONAL DATA 


FURNISHED ON REQUEST 


wv 
ioe] 
ee 
N 
i] 
i 
| 
© 
N 
Tf 
T= 
© 


Sea 
—— 
———— 
——— 
eee 
—__ 
eS eS 
—— 
= 
—S= 
a 
— 
—_—_—_ 
SS 
ar 
——— 
oases 
———_ 
= 
—— 
=. 
= 
ae 
Se 
—_— 
= 
——_ 
[Sees 
—_——__ 
aSeso 
——_ 
Se 
=——— 
SSS 
———___— 
— 
Sera 
=—_—_——— 
————— 
ad 
Seen 
——_ 
= 
ey 
———_ 
Sas 
=————— 
— 
-_ 
Sans 
——— 
ed 
——_- ¢%) 
=_—_ 
— 
ne! 
= 
SS 
— SSS 
SSS 
_ 
_ 
SS 
—_—_——— 


